AP-5 and stressed A-Wings

By Minimono, in X-Wing Rules Questions

Can a stressed A-Wing, who is being coordinated by AP-5, use the vectored thrusters-chassis ability after doing the coordinated action?

I assume not, because it is not a linked action?

Edited by Minimono
2 hours ago, Minimono said:

Can a stressed A-Wing, who is being coordinated by AP-5, use the vectored thrusters-chassis ability after doing the coordinated action?

I assume not, because it is not a linked action?

that's a no, not because it's not a linked action, though, but because AP-5 is no longer coordinating after the ship being coordinated has performed an action.

AP-5's wording is slightly confusing in this case, because it states that "it can perform actions.", as in plural. it doesn't say it can perform an action which would have been more consistent with the rules for coordinating.

while coordinating, the chosen ship performs one action. after that, you are no longer coordinating. that means AP-5's ability is no longer active and the ship can no longer perform actions while stressed.

Sheathipede_AP-5.png A-Wing_Farrell.png

Capture.jpg

Thank you so much!

3 hours ago, meffo said:

that's a no, not because it's not a linked action, though, but because AP-5 is no longer coordinating after the ship being coordinated has performed an action.

AP-5's wording is slightly confusing in this case, because it states that "it can perform actions.", as in plural. it doesn't say it can perform an action which would have been more consistent with the rules for coordinating.

while coordinating, the chosen ship performs one action. after that, you are no longer coordinating. that means AP-5's ability is no longer active and the ship can no longer perform actions while stressed.

Sheathipede_AP-5.png A-Wing_Farrell.png

Capture.jpg

There was debate on this a couple weeks ago. Did that ever get a ruling to state this? I don't disagree with you, just curious if that was ever clarified.

29 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

There was debate on this a couple weeks ago. Did that ever get a ruling to state this? I don't disagree with you, just curious if that was ever clarified.

don't think so. as far as i can tell, there is no other valid interpretation, but i'd be happy to discuss it.